/
3.4 Tools, resources and software in the review process
com.atlassian.confluence.content.render.xhtml.migration.exceptions.UnknownMacroMigrationException: The macro 'datalayer.push(arguments);' is unknown.

3.4 Tools, resources and software in the review process

Owned by Carolyn Phillips
Last updated: Mar 03, 2025
2 min read

Tools

Lockwood, C, Munn, Z & Porritt, K 2015, ‘Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers using meta-aggregation’, International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 179–187.

Resources

Hannes, K & Lockwood, C 2011a, Synthesizing qualitative research: choosing the right approach, Wiley.

Hannes, K & Lockwood, C 2011b, ‘Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis,’ Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 1632–1642.

Hannes, K, Lockwood, C & Pearson, A 2010, ‘A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research’. Qualitative Health Research, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1736–1743.

Lockwood, C, Jordan, Z, Bhatarasakoon, P & Jia, RM 2023, ‘The rise of checklists and the fall of reflexivity in qualitative research’, Nursing and Health Sciences, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 267–70.

Lockwood, C, Munn, Z & Porritt, K 2015, ‘Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation’, JBI Evidence Implementation, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 179–187.

Lockwood, C, Stannard, D, Bjerrum, M, Carrier, J, Evans, C, Hannes, K, Munn, Z, Porritt, K & Salmond, SW 2019, ‘A situated philosophical perspective would make some of the paradigm wars in qualitative evidence synthesis redundant: a commentary on Bergdahl’s critique of the meta-aggregative approach’, Nursing Inquiry, vol. 26, no. 4, e12317.

Munn, Z, Aromataris, E, Tufanaru, C, Stern, C, Porritt, K, Farrow, J, Lockwood, C, Stephenson, M, Moola, S, Lizarondo, L, McArthur, A, Peters, M, Pearson, A & Jordan, Z 2019, ‘The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 36–43.

Munn, Z, Porritt, K, Lockwood, C, Aromataris, E & Pearson, A 2014, ‘Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 14, p. 108.

Porritt, K, Gomersall, J & Lockwood, C 2014, ‘JBI’s systematic reviews: study selection and critical appraisal’, American Journal of Nursing, vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 47–52.

Software

JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI; JBI, Adelaide, Australia) has been designed to align with the meta-aggregation approach and is the recommended software to use when conducting meta-aggregation (Munn et al. 2019). However, the use of other software packages is acceptable. If using software other than JBI SUMARI, reviewers should be careful to note the level of credibility for each finding and the reference/page number for each extracted quote/illustration.



Related content